DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…a motion degree calculation unit configured to calculate a motion degree of the pixels based on the image data of the previous frame and the image data of the current frame, a blur saturation calculation unit configured to calculate blur saturation of the pixels based on the image data of the previous frame and the image data of the current frame, and an enhancement saturation calculation unit configured to calculate enhancement saturation of the pixels based on the image data of the current frame; and a blur enhancement processing unit configured to perform blur processing…” in claim 1; “…a difference processing unit, the difference processing unit is configured to calculate a difference…” in claim 4; “…a normalized luminance calculation unit and a saturation processing unit, the normalized luminance calculation unit is configured to calculate normalized luminance data of the image data of the previous frame based on the brightness data of the image data of the previous frame and to calculate normalized luminance data of the image data of the current frame based on the brightness data of the image data of the current frame, the saturation processing unit is configured to convert each of a value of the normalized luminance data…” in claim 5; “…a normalized luminance calculation unit and a saturation processing unit, the normalized luminance calculation unit is configured to calculate normalized luminance data of the image data of the previous frame based on the brightness data of the image data of the previous frame and to calculate normalized luminance data of the image data of the current frame based on the brightness data of the image data of the current frame, the saturation processing unit is configured to convert each of a value of the normalized luminance data…” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitations “…a motion degree calculation unit configured to calculate a motion degree of the pixels based on the image data of the previous frame and the image data of the current frame, a blur saturation calculation unit configured to calculate blur saturation of the pixels based on the image data of the previous frame and the image data of the current frame, and an enhancement saturation calculation unit configured to calculate enhancement saturation of the pixels based on the image data of the current frame; and a blur enhancement processing unit configured to perform blur processing…” in claim 1; “…a difference processing unit, the difference processing unit is configured to calculate a difference…” in claim 4; “…a normalized luminance calculation unit and a saturation processing unit, the normalized luminance calculation unit is configured to calculate normalized luminance data of the image data of the previous frame based on the brightness data of the image data of the previous frame and to calculate normalized luminance data of the image data of the current frame based on the brightness data of the image data of the current frame, the saturation processing unit is configured to convert each of a value of the normalized luminance data…” in claim 5; “…a normalized luminance calculation unit and a saturation processing unit, the normalized luminance calculation unit is configured to calculate normalized luminance data of the image data of the previous frame based on the brightness data of the image data of the previous frame and to calculate normalized luminance data of the image data of the current frame based on the brightness data of the image data of the current frame, the saturation processing unit is configured to convert each of a value of the normalized luminance data…” in claim 6; invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Disclosure as originally filed shows the above indicated claim elements in for of black boxes without providing any details of the corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further, claims 2-14 which are dependent upon claims 1, 5, 6 are also rejected for the same reasons as provided for claim 1, 5 and 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 1, prior art of record Ha et al. (2009/0268977) teaches a display device comprising: a display portion (150; Fig 1) configured to perform display based on image data of a first-half sub-frame and image data of a second-half sub-frame (Fig 2; para [0076]), image data of a previous frame (frame In-1; Fig 2) and image data of a current frame (frame In; Fig 2) each including brightness data of a plurality of pixels (Fig 3A; Fig 3B), the image data of the previous frame and the image data of the current frame each being divided into the image data of the first-half sub-frame and the image data of the second-half sub-frame (para [0057]); a calculation unit including at least one of a motion degree calculation unit (110; Fig 1) configured to calculate a motion degree of the pixels based on the image data of the previous frame and the image data of the current frame (para [0045]).
Warmuth et al. (2008/0279470) teaches a display device comprising: a motion blur reduction processing (para [0038]).
Regarding claim 1, prior art of record fails to teach the following claim limitations of “…a blur saturation calculation unit configured to calculate blur saturation of the pixels based on the image data of the previous frame and the image data of the current frame, and an enhancement saturation calculation unit configured to calculate enhancement saturation of the pixels based on the image data of the current frame; and a blur enhancement processing unit configured to perform blur processing on one of the image data of the first-half sub-frame and the image data of the second-half sub-frame of the current frame and perform enhancement processing on the other, wherein in a case where the calculation unit includes the motion degree calculation unit, the blur enhancement processing unit is configured to output, without performing the blur processing and the enhancement processing on, the image data of the first-half sub-frame and the image data of the second-half sub-frame corresponding to a pixel having the motion degree equal to or less than a first threshold value among the plurality of pixels, in a case where the calculation unit includes the blur saturation calculation unit, the blur enhancement processing unit is configured to output, without performing the blur processing on, one of the image data of the first-half sub-frame and the image data of the second-half sub-frame corresponding to a pixel having the blur saturation equal to or greater than a second threshold value among the plurality of pixels, and in a case where the calculation unit includes the enhancement saturation calculation unit, the blur enhancement processing unit is configured to output, without performing the enhancement processing on, one of the image data of the first-half sub- frame and the image data of the second-half sub-frame corresponding to a pixel having the enhancement saturation equal to or greater than the second threshold value among the plurality of pixels.”; in combination with all other claim limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aida et al. (2011/0142290) teaches a method for controlling an image processing apparatus for generating and outputting frames different from each other in frequency component from an input frame include, detecting motion of the input frame by comparing the input frame with a frame before or after the input frame in terms of time, storing the input frame in a frame memory, and reading the input frame by a plurality of times to convert a frame rate of the input frame, generating the frames different from each other in frequency component from the frame whose frame rate has been converted, outputting the generated frames if the detected input frame is determined to be a moving image, and outputting the frame whose frame rate has been converted if the input frame is determined to be a still image.
Ishihara (2008/0180424) teaches an image displaying apparatus is disclosed which divides 1 frame into plural sub-frame periods, and modifies the image signals in the following manner in the case of receiving an image of a frame in which a region denoted by an image signal .alpha. or an image signal close to the image signal .alpha. and a region of another image signal .beta. or an image signal close to the image signal .beta. are adjacent to each other. Specifically, the image displaying apparatus carries out display, in at least one sub-frames period A, with a modified image signal so that the difference with the image signal of the other region becomes smaller, and in at least one other sub-frames period B, with a modified image signal so that the difference with the image signal of the other region becomes more significant, in the vicinity of the boundary between the region of the image signal .alpha. and the region of the image signal .beta.. In this way, an embodiment of the present invention provides an effect of improvement in moving picture quality of a hold-type display device without causing a decrease in luminance or flicker.
Yoshida et al. (2008/0180385) teaches a hold-type display device without a problem of motion blur and a driving method thereof. The length of a period for displaying a blanking image in one frame period is controlled in accordance with a control parameter showing the degree of motion blur, and the level of a signal supplied to a display element is changed in accordance with the length of the period for displaying the blanking image. Accordingly, the hold-type display device without a problem of motion blur and the driving method thereof can be provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MATTHEW EASON can be reached at 571-270-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PREMAL R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights